Court Upholds Rejection of Accused's Affidavit Evidence in Cheque Bouncing Cases Under Negotiable Instruments Act.

The court dismissed the petitions filed under s. 482 Cr.P.C., affirming the trial court's decision to reject the accused's examination-in-chief submitted via affidavit in cheque bouncing cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It concluded that the accused are not competent to tender evidence through affidavit, upholding the trial court's order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of setting aside an order passed by the trial court in Cheque bouncing cases u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning the rejection of examination-in-chief of the accused submitted by way of affidavit u/s 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the stage of defense evidence.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Rejection of examination-in-chief of accused submitted by way of affidavit
The petitioners filed petitions u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the trial court's order rejecting their examination-in-chief in Cheque bouncing cases. The trial court rejected the applications and affidavits filed by the accused, leading to the petitions. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in relying on previous judgments and failed to consider subsequent directions by the Apex Court. They sought to have the affidavits taken as evidence in the interest of justice.

Issue 2: Competence to tender evidence through affidavit
The respondents contended that the trial court rightly rejected the applications based on previous judgments. They cited cases from Punjab and Haryana High Court and a Full Bench Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court to support their argument. The court found merit in the respondents' contentions, emphasizing that the accused in a complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act are not competent to tender evidence through affidavit.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments from both parties and analyzing the relevant case law, the court dismissed both petitions as devoid of merit. It was established that the accused in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot tender evidence through affidavit, and the trial court did not err in declining permission for the same. The judgment highlighted the settled law in this regard and upheld the trial court's decision to reject the examination-in-chief submitted by way of affidavit.

---